tempestsarekind: (all the world's a stage)
I ask because the Folger Shakespeare Library dropped a link to this podcast interview with Craig Pierce and Shekhar Kapur, where they talk about creating the new TV show Will, into my inbox this morning:

http://www.folger.edu/shakespeare-unlimited/tnt-will

Will I listen to it? (Another way of asking the same question as before.)

...I mean, I probably won't, because between the two of them, these men are responsible for three films that I really don't like - the Lurhmann Romeo plus Juliet and Kapur's two Elizabeth films, which lucked out by having Cate Blanchett in them, but are not actually, like, good, or nuanced, or even comprehensible. But if you have a higher tolerance for this whole "Shakespeare is totally punk rock, yo, not all stuffy like the Man says!" thing, here you go.
tempestsarekind: (oh noes)
Young William Shakespeare TNT Pilot ‘Will’ Casts Lead, Shekhar Kapur To Direct

http://bit.ly/1OEq65M

(Deadline is marked as spam on LJ, so I hope this will get around it)

*runs in singing 'I hate everything about this paragraph, la la la'*

Elizabeth helmer Shekhar Kapur is directing the pilot, which comes from Craig Pearce, the longtime writing partner of auteur filmmaker Baz Luhrmann. It tells the wild story of young William Shakespeare’s (Davidson) arrival onto the punk rock theater scene that was 16th century London – the seductive, violent world where his raw talent faced rioting audiences, religious fanatics and raucous side-shows. It’s described as the hot, contemporary, dangerous version of Shakespeare’s life, played to a modern soundtrack, exposing all his recklessness, lustful temptations and brilliance.


*runs back out again screaming 'look it's not your grandma's Elizabethan period, aren't we soooo contemporary'*

ugh ugh ugh

(also, weirdly, I can't tell whether this has any connection to that "Shakespeare-in-Love-meets-Game-of-Thrones" CW pilot that involved witches and conspiracies or whatever, or if this is in fact an entirely different Shakespeare pilot.)
tempestsarekind: (peddlers of bombast)
I have a really hard time reading or watching things about the plague. (When my friend and I went to the Museum of London in August, we were practically the only people who didn't stop to watch the video about the Black Death.)

I feel as though this will prove to be a real detriment to my career.

The reason this came up is that I'm trying to find some interesting angles into R&J for the week, and I thought it might be useful to make it clearer that plague is a real threat, not just a contrivance to make the Friar's letter go awry (especially for students who've grown up on Baz Luhrmann's film, where the letter gets delayed because Romeo apparently cannot take time out of his punishing schedule of hitting rocks with a stick to notice that someone's just walked up to his trailer, even though he's so eager for news from Verona that he practically tackles Balthazar later). But I'm having a hard time doing the appropriate reading--trying to find some contemporary passage about the disease without making myself feel ill and sad.

It's either this or sonnets. Either way, I'm just not looking forward to teaching. Even I am bored by my own ideas. Even the idea of having to take attendance on Friday is making me slightly nauseated. This is bad. How did I get so scared of teaching in just one year?
tempestsarekind: (peddlers of bombast)
I have a really hard time reading or watching things about the plague. (When my friend and I went to the Museum of London in August, we were practically the only people who didn't stop to watch the video about the Black Death.)

I feel as though this will prove to be a real detriment to my career.

The reason this came up is that I'm trying to find some interesting angles into R&J for the week, and I thought it might be useful to make it clearer that plague is a real threat, not just a contrivance to make the Friar's letter go awry (especially for students who've grown up on Baz Luhrmann's film, where the letter gets delayed because Romeo apparently cannot take time out of his punishing schedule of hitting rocks with a stick to notice that someone's just walked up to his trailer, even though he's so eager for news from Verona that he practically tackles Balthazar later). But I'm having a hard time doing the appropriate reading--trying to find some contemporary passage about the disease without making myself feel ill and sad.

It's either this or sonnets. Either way, I'm just not looking forward to teaching. Even I am bored by my own ideas. Even the idea of having to take attendance on Friday is making me slightly nauseated. This is bad. How did I get so scared of teaching in just one year?
tempestsarekind: (peddlers of bombast)
That's it, Ron Rosenbaum. The Shakespeare Wars and I are through. Seriously.

I sat through the needless slams on academia, your weird obsession with Peter Brook, your ridiculous idea that people use theory to protect them from the unbearable instability at the heart of close-reading (um, because, what?), your self-aggrandizing throughout the book, your statement that "acolytes" of Greenblatt's had somehow caused the death of the author (really?), your support of The Merchant of Venice as an anti-Semitic play that consisted only of the fact that the Nazis staged it a lot--which is a telling observation, sure, but not so much about the play as about the play's reception. (Whenever he presents an argument that attempts to point out anything else about the play, like the fact that, hey, it's not like the Christians are all sunshine and virtue either, his "rebuttal" consists of, "Yeah, that must be why the Nazis staged it so much, because of all the critique of Christians." Seriously.)

But then you had to go and defend the hallucinatory crapfest that is Baz Luhrmann's Romeo + Juliet. Defend it on the grounds that people who don't like it require their Shakespeare to be stately and RP (as opposed to, you know, acted by actors who have some idea of what their words mean). Defend it on the grounds that it's so surprising that Luhrmann's film actually contains, like, Shakespeare's own words and stuff, instead of being a retelling like O. (To which I say, at least then I wouldn't have had to listen to Leo mangle "Let lips do what hands do: they pray. Grant thou, lest faith turn to depair...") Defend it on the grounds that Harold Perrineau's black, cross-dressing Mercutio (who is pretty awesome, I'll grant) is Christopher Marlowe and that the whole stupid "Queen Mab as a drug" thing actually illuminates something about the text. (Sorry, but no.)

And then, adding insult to crap, he defends the ending because of some shared communion Romeo and Juliet manage to have, and how "Luhrmann's mute mutual gaze of loss and horror could be said to have illuminated rather than contradicted [Peter] Holland's vision of Shakespeare's 'tragedy of incompletion' (343). I love how Rosenbaum completely gets his knickers in a twist about how damaging cuts in the recent Merchant of Venice film are to the conception of the play, and how it's so important to let Shakespeare have the last word instead of going for directorial intervention or invention, but completely ignores the fact that Juliet, like, has words and stuff in her last scene in the play, and that "mute mutual gaze" only works--only exists in the first place--if you deny Juliet her chance to speak. If you deny her her chance to say her goodbyes to Romeo as poignantly as he has just done. HATE.

ARGH.
tempestsarekind: (peddlers of bombast)
That's it, Ron Rosenbaum. The Shakespeare Wars and I are through. Seriously.

I sat through the needless slams on academia, your weird obsession with Peter Brook, your ridiculous idea that people use theory to protect them from the unbearable instability at the heart of close-reading (um, because, what?), your self-aggrandizing throughout the book, your statement that "acolytes" of Greenblatt's had somehow caused the death of the author (really?), your support of The Merchant of Venice as an anti-Semitic play that consisted only of the fact that the Nazis staged it a lot--which is a telling observation, sure, but not so much about the play as about the play's reception. (Whenever he presents an argument that attempts to point out anything else about the play, like the fact that, hey, it's not like the Christians are all sunshine and virtue either, his "rebuttal" consists of, "Yeah, that must be why the Nazis staged it so much, because of all the critique of Christians." Seriously.)

But then you had to go and defend the hallucinatory crapfest that is Baz Luhrmann's Romeo + Juliet. Defend it on the grounds that people who don't like it require their Shakespeare to be stately and RP (as opposed to, you know, acted by actors who have some idea of what their words mean). Defend it on the grounds that it's so surprising that Luhrmann's film actually contains, like, Shakespeare's own words and stuff, instead of being a retelling like O. (To which I say, at least then I wouldn't have had to listen to Leo mangle "Let lips do what hands do: they pray. Grant thou, lest faith turn to depair...") Defend it on the grounds that Harold Perrineau's black, cross-dressing Mercutio (who is pretty awesome, I'll grant) is Christopher Marlowe and that the whole stupid "Queen Mab as a drug" thing actually illuminates something about the text. (Sorry, but no.)

And then, adding insult to crap, he defends the ending because of some shared communion Romeo and Juliet manage to have, and how "Luhrmann's mute mutual gaze of loss and horror could be said to have illuminated rather than contradicted [Peter] Holland's vision of Shakespeare's 'tragedy of incompletion' (343). I love how Rosenbaum completely gets his knickers in a twist about how damaging cuts in the recent Merchant of Venice film are to the conception of the play, and how it's so important to let Shakespeare have the last word instead of going for directorial intervention or invention, but completely ignores the fact that Juliet, like, has words and stuff in her last scene in the play, and that "mute mutual gaze" only works--only exists in the first place--if you deny Juliet her chance to speak. If you deny her her chance to say her goodbyes to Romeo as poignantly as he has just done. HATE.

ARGH.

Profile

tempestsarekind: (Default)
tempestsarekind

July 2017

S M T W T F S
      1
2345678
91011 12 13 1415
16171819 202122
23 242526272829
3031     

Syndicate

RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Jul. 27th, 2017 04:47 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios